Sunday, November 04, 2007
The 'authority' of the USA is gone
When the best of the best of our nation comes to work seeking to end real threats against the people of the USA, but, are turned into political toys, the only conclusion a responsible citizen can come to is the administration in the Executive Branch is treasonist and works to cause danger to citizens rather than resolve it.
The conservative media has challenged the importance of the work of Valerie Plame to justify as a reason for her outing, therefore, allowing the Bush Administration to punish Ambassador Joe Wilson where it hits at home. This behavior by an elected president and vice president is absolutely outrageous. To realize these men are still in office is simply more outrageous.
The idea that the work of a CIA agent pursuing the marketing of Weapons of Mass Destruction to or of a global terrorist network is trivial pursuit is the most hideous statement I ever heard. The REASON George Walker Bush "Jr." and Richard "Halliburton" Cheney used to justify the illegal invasion into Iraq was the capacity of that sovereign country to proliferate Weapons of Mass Destruction and use them. When realizing they used the opportunity of outing a CIA agent to stop 'the truth' telling of Ambassador Wilson and to realize that agent was not only his spouse but the very agent that would have the most information regarding the very 'REASON' Bush and Cheney cited for the invasion is a relationship in reality no media service has pursued.
The Bush Executive Branch's outing of Valerie Plame served several purposes; it galvanized the conservative media to mount a campaign that would promote the lead up to war with Iraq, it promoted the idea that Ambassador Wilson's Op-Ed in The New York Times was illegitimate and it stopped the very progress Valerie Plame was making in protecting the nation. Not only that but the work she was doing to track the illegal and dangerous market of Weapons of Mass Destruction was destroyed. No one could come along and simply start her work where she left off. It would take years of rebuilding the infrastructure of the spy network Valerie was supporting to accomplish that goal, if indeed it could be accomplished again. In other words, the irresponsible outing of Valerie Plame for political volleys in the lead up to war revealed the underbelly of the CIA initiative and with it the agents both domestic and foreign providing a support to her work. I don't want to know whom in the world may have been in jeopardy or killed due to the outing of Valerie Plame, but, I am confident the infrastructure she accomplished to build leading to undermine such a dangerous market was destroyed with the Bush and Cheney desperation to launch the attacks into Iraq.
The USA's authority to protect the people of the nation has been destroyed with an outrageous political volley by the outing of Valerie Plame and the appearance of challenging the authority of Ambassador Wilson's reputation. These are reputations and careers recognized in the greater world as people that can be trusted for relaying sensitive information to a trusted ally. The irresponsible outing of Valerie has only caused paused to many in the global network to dismantle terrorist networks when it comes to informing the USA and taking the risk to protect the people of this nation while improving circumstances for those that come forward.
The outing of Valerie Plame is a heinous act against the security of the USA and it remains unpunished for it's severity and stupidity, only left to be repeated by those that place their narcisstic political interests ahead of the best interests of the people of the USA.
Newsnight Book Club - Fair Game by Valerie Plame Wilson (click here)
25 Oct 07, 04:01 PM
The latest entry into the Newsnight Book Club is Valerie Plame's Fair Game.
Valerie Plame Wilson is the woman at the centre of the scandal that, ultimately, led to the downfall, prosecution and conviction of the former White House chief of staff, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, for revealing her identity as a CIA spy.
In Fair Game, Valerie Plame Wilson tells her side of the story, and details her life as a spy. The following extract covers the moment her identity was revealed.
Watch Newsnight’s 2005 interview with Joseph Wilson
Fair Game is published by Simon & Schuster....
Friday, July 27, 2007
Plame promises appeal...Iraq said gripped by fear...
Plame promises appeal...(click here)
Former C-I-A operative Valerie Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson, say they'll appeal a federal court ruling against them. A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit in which they sought damages from Bush administration officials they blame for leaking Plame's C-I-A identity.
CAPITOL HILL (AP) The U-S ambassador to Baghdad says Iraq is a nation gripped by fear. Speaking by video link from Iraq, Ryan Crocker told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee progress can only happen when fear is replaced "with some level of trust and confidence."
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Currently, the 'best hope' in defeating Osama bin Laden comes in the form of widows, including 911 spouses.
Mariane Pearl's suit contends that Pakistan's biggest bank aided her husband's killers.
Pearl widow sues bank, extremists (click here)
NEW YORK - Daniel Pearl's widow sued more than a dozen reputed extremists and Pakistan's largest bank, blaming them for the 2002 torture and murder of the Wall Street Journal reporter.
A complaint filed yesterday in Brooklyn federal court by Mariane Pearl and her husband's estate alleges that Habib Bank Limited of Karachi knowingly provided financial services for al-Qaeda and other terror groups. Backed by the bank, terrorists "carried out the kidnapping, ransom, torture, execution and dismemberment of Daniel Pearl and broadcast those images nationwide," said the suit, which seeks unspecified damages.
Also named as a defendant is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the imprisoned mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.
There was no immediate response to a message left with the bank's Manhattan office.- AP
There is a lot of validity to the 'idea' that cutting off funding to a military operation, which al Qaeda is, will stop, slow and prevent any ability for the war to survive. To stop the funds available to terrorist networks is a very, very smart and 'real strategy' against their ability to carry out attacks. The West has a lot to be grateful for if these widows are successful. I wish them all the best.
Judge Halts Valerie Plame's Lawsuit
In this Friday, March 16, 2007, file photo, former CIA analyst Valerie Plame listens to opening statements on Capitol Hill during the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing. A federal judge on Thursday, July 19, 2007, dismissed Plame's lawsuit against members of the Bush administration in the CIA leak scandal. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)
ANOTHER 'GREAT MOMENT' for the Bush Administration. Outing a CIA agent is not only legal and pardoning a liar essential but 'the power brokers' have never been more obvious.
WASHINGTON -- A federal judge in Washington is tossing out a lawsuit filed by former CIA (click here) operative Valerie Plame against members of the Bush administration in the CIA leak scandal.
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, and said he wouldn't express an opinion on the constitutional arguments.
Plame accused Vice President Dick Cheney and others of conspiring to leak her identity. She said it violated her privacy rights, and that it was an illegal act of retribution for her husband's criticism of the administration.
Her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was a prominent critic of the administration's justifications for the war in Iraq.
Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
Libby, the vice president's former chief of staff, was convicted of obstructing the investigation into the leak. He was fined and sentenced to two and a-half years in prison, but the prison sentence was commuted by President George W. Bush.
Plame's attorneys had said the lawsuit would be an uphill battle. Public officials are normally immune from such lawsuits filed in connection with their jobs.
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, and said he wouldn't express an opinion on the constitutional arguments.
Plame accused Vice President Dick Cheney and others of conspiring to leak her identity. She said it violated her privacy rights, and that it was an illegal act of retribution for her husband's criticism of the administration.
Her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was a prominent critic of the administration's justifications for the war in Iraq.
Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
Libby, the vice president's former chief of staff, was convicted of obstructing the investigation into the leak. He was fined and sentenced to two and a-half years in prison, but the prison sentence was commuted by President George W. Bush.
Plame's attorneys had said the lawsuit would be an uphill battle. Public officials are normally immune from such lawsuits filed in connection with their jobs.
Mr. Big Mouth has written a book. Like "No Clue." I won't ever buy it. Not worth it.
Men like Bob Novak have no conscience. He has 'alliances' when performing his 'job' as a pundit to the Neocon Americans of the Republican Party. Bob Novack is a prime example of how a democracy upheld as the last word in freedom can fall into the "W"rongest of hands and be exploited for criminal and commercial purpose.
Bob Novak's answer to the American Health Care Crisis is to close the office of the Surgeon General. Incredible the 'gall' these men have in putting forth an anarchic agenda to defeat democracy rather than uphold it.
The word is treason. It exists in this dialogue because 'of the people' involved with the 'power structure' within the USA democracy. Will they ever be punished? No. They will be excused by the power structure while under the direction of 'Their Party' members.
Trusting an Executive Branch of the USA has never been more important. While 'outing' a CIA agent is NOT a crime and a means of 'muting' a runaway CIA operation that actually 'endangers' the foreign policy of the USA, this operation by Valerie Plame was NOT a danger to the USA so much as necessary. She was operating a covert operation to expose people involved with WMD globally.
Mr. Novak acted out of pure unadulted lust for power and money. He had no desire to serve the USA in a patriotic manner, but, more 'The Republican Party' and it's Neocon substructure that promotes war as international policy and poverty as domestic policy.
The operative word here is 'justifies.' It speaks eons to the lack of truth exuded by the Neocons.
Novak justifies outing Plame & sources (click here)
Posted: Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:36 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Posted: Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:36 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Categories: Security
From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro
At a breakfast meeting with reporters, Bob Novak defended his decision to print Valerie Plame Wilson’s name in his column -- which sparked the CIA leak investigation. And he justified his outing of several once-anonymous sources in his new book, The Prince of Darkness....
From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro
At a breakfast meeting with reporters, Bob Novak defended his decision to print Valerie Plame Wilson’s name in his column -- which sparked the CIA leak investigation. And he justified his outing of several once-anonymous sources in his new book, The Prince of Darkness....
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
What happened to reverence for the truth?
U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq at 3,583
By The Associated Press
07.02.07, 8:30 PM ET
As of Monday, July 2, 2007, at least 3,583 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilians. At least 2,942 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.
The AP count is six higher than the Defense Department's tally, last updated Monday at 10 a.m. EDT.
The British military has reported 156 deaths; Italy, 33; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 20; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Denmark, seven; El Salvador, five; Slovakia, four; Latvia, three; Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, two each; and Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Romania, South Korea, one death each.
The latest deaths reported by the military:
_ A soldier was killed Monday by an explosion in Salahuddin province.
_ Two soldiers and one Marine were killed Sunday in Anbar province.
_ A soldier was killed Sunday by small-arms fire in southern Baghdad.
The latest identifications reported by the military:
_ Army Staff Sgt. Robb L. Rolfing, 29, Milton, Mass.; died Saturday in Baghdad of wounds from small-arms fire; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Carson, Colo.
_ Army Pfc. Jonathan M. Rossi, 20, Safety Harbor, Fla.; died Sunday in Baghdad of wounds from an explosive and small-arms fire; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Bliss, Texas.
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved
As of Monday, July 2, 2007, at least 3,583 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilians. At least 2,942 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.
The AP count is six higher than the Defense Department's tally, last updated Monday at 10 a.m. EDT.
The British military has reported 156 deaths; Italy, 33; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 20; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Denmark, seven; El Salvador, five; Slovakia, four; Latvia, three; Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, two each; and Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Romania, South Korea, one death each.
The latest deaths reported by the military:
_ A soldier was killed Monday by an explosion in Salahuddin province.
_ Two soldiers and one Marine were killed Sunday in Anbar province.
_ A soldier was killed Sunday by small-arms fire in southern Baghdad.
The latest identifications reported by the military:
_ Army Staff Sgt. Robb L. Rolfing, 29, Milton, Mass.; died Saturday in Baghdad of wounds from small-arms fire; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Carson, Colo.
_ Army Pfc. Jonathan M. Rossi, 20, Safety Harbor, Fla.; died Sunday in Baghdad of wounds from an explosive and small-arms fire; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Bliss, Texas.
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved
George W. Bush is One Tough Hombre (click here)
…Mr. Bush is tough enough to invade a country that was no risk to America, causing tens of thousands of civilian deaths and shedding precious American blood in the process. Tough enough to sanction torture. Tough enough to order an American citizen arrested and held without trial.
But if you're rich and right-wing and Republican, George is a real softie. As George W. Bush demonstrated in giving Scooter Libby a Get Out of Jail Free Card, he is only compassionate to conservatives.
What does it say about America in the age of Bush when Judith Miller spends more time in jail over the Valerie Plame smear than Scooter Libby?...
…Mr. Bush is tough enough to invade a country that was no risk to America, causing tens of thousands of civilian deaths and shedding precious American blood in the process. Tough enough to sanction torture. Tough enough to order an American citizen arrested and held without trial.
But if you're rich and right-wing and Republican, George is a real softie. As George W. Bush demonstrated in giving Scooter Libby a Get Out of Jail Free Card, he is only compassionate to conservatives.
What does it say about America in the age of Bush when Judith Miller spends more time in jail over the Valerie Plame smear than Scooter Libby?...
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
A quarter million in fines and 30 months to think about it.
Patrick Fitzgerald received the sentence he asked for while Scooter Libby looks to the White House to do 'the corrupt act' of pardoning him.
David Corn 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
The Nation -- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby stood before federal district court Judge Reggie Walton. It was finally the moment for Vice President Dick Cheney' Libby, who did not testify during the trial, thanked the court for showing him and his defense team consideration during the proceedings. He told the judge, "It is...my hope the court will consider...my whole life."
That was it.
No apology.
No expression of remorse.
Then Walton sentenced Libby to 30 months in jail and a $250,000 fine. Libby didn't flinch. His wife, Harriet Grant, cried. Notable conservatives in the front row of the crowded courtroom--Mary Matalin, Barbara Comstock, and Victoria Toensing--appeared shocked.
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had asked Walton to incarcerate Libby for 30 to 37 months. At the hearing, prior to Walton's ruling, Libby's defense attorneys--Ted Wells and William Jeffress Jr.--contended that Libby should get off with probation. They threw several arguments at the judge. First, they claimed that the toughest sentencing guides should not be applied to Libby, echoing an argument put forward by Libby's champions in rightwing circles: Nobody was ever charged with leaking the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson, so the whole case was not such a big deal. Walton did not bite. Citing appeals court decisions, he noted that in an obstruction of justice case it's the investigation that counts, not the ultimate outcome of the investigation. "Your position," Walton told Jeffress, "would seem to promote someone aggressively engaging in obstruction behavior."...
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Thomas Jefferson on treason
Treason. This, when real, merits the highest punishment. But most codes extend their definition of treason to acts not really against one’s country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government and acts against the oppressions of the government; the latter are virtues; yet they have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former; because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny, have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries.
Reformation of government with our neighbors, being as much wanted now as religion is, or ever was anywhere, we should not wish then, to give up to the executioner, the patriot who fails, and flees to us. Treasons then, taking the simulated with the real, are sufficiently punished by exile.
—Heads of consideration on the establishment of extradition treaties, 22 March 1792
THE EARLY COLONISTS HAD A VERY REAL SENSE OF LOYALTY TO THEIR NEW CONSITUTION. In that, they practiced piety to the Constitution and held their hearts in loyalty to their new found freedoms.
Where they were religious men or not was not the issue so much as the result. They left England seeking a better life. They carried out a revolution against the British to claim freedom over oppression.
The motivations behind the actions of Mr. Bush (click on), on all fronts is more than questionable. He would like to paint himself as a victim to his administration (click on).
Bush stated while in Mexico, "I guess Al didn't handle it well, I am hearing about it in Mexico."
That slight of tongue is oddly interesting in that from the notations below, Mr. Bush knew full well the focus of this Justice Department in firing the eight US Attorneys. He approved of it. He dreamed of a greater elimination of US Attorneys with the consent of his White House Council. The only aspect that 'troubled' his South/Latin American Tour was the fact the media at home was telling the truth regarding an out of control administration in the White House. Out of control on all fronts.
The question is the brevity of this 'attitude' of this administration. Self-righteous, eliminating any and all citizens as important except for his Evangelical constituents that was pandered to by Karl Rove to hold onto a wedge to any election. A guaranteed Anti-Democrat constituency with enough numbers to destroy a Constitution. The Evangelicals are a very dedicated religion. They believe the overthrow of a nation to insure they have their own is appropriate. It is noted in magnitude throughout the Bush Administration.
Also in equal or even greater magnitude was a covert operation for wealth and power in the Oval Office. WIth the consent of Mr. Bush, there was negligence that lead to the attacks of September 11, 200l. There were lies conducted before the United Nations, the American Public and as a result a scandalous war that has currently killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. There is and has not been any remorse regarding these atrocities against all peoples, including that of the people of the very nation he is supposed to be loyal to.
The scandalous and self-righteous White House was more than negligent in their outing of a CIA agent in order to oppress the truth regarding the evidence that lead to the illegal invasion into Iraq. There was spying on Americans, Rendition Flights, alienation of allies, the estrangement of the international image of the USA, torture of prisoners. Domestically, the educational system of the USA is no longer internationally competitive, medical assurances are dwindling for most people, lost economic voracity with good paying jobs and lives easy to manage and enjoy, the loss of the housing boom that has floated the Bush Economy hence destroying The American Dream.
The loss of the Treasury Surplus while replaced by uncontrollable debt to fuel Bush/Cheney's war aspirations. Along with that the 'promise' of the USA to improve the lives of every generation of Americans. No real support for Genetic Research. Complete negligence of the Global Troposphere and hence even enhancing Human Induced Global Warming while he argues with Canada over access to the melting Arctic Ocean for the purpose of oil exploration, a Treasury Secretary that spends more time in China than the USA.
The word greed overshadows every aspect of this administration, at the cost of the dignity of the USA.
The issue is, has the Bush White House simply oppressed the will of the people of the USA or committed treason against their government. With a list this long of atrocities against the USA Constitution including the demoralization of Habeas Corpus, can there honestly be any doubt about the legitimate charge of treason of the entirety of this Executive Branch.
No.
There is absolutely no doubt.
U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq at 3,200
As of Wednesday, March 14, 2007, at least 3,200 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilians. At least 2,579 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.
The AP count is six higher than the Defense Department's tally, last updated Wednesday at 10 a.m. EDT.
The British military has reported 134 deaths; Italy, 33; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 19; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Denmark, six; El Salvador, five; Slovakia, four; Latvia, three; Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, two each; and Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Romania, one death each.
Three more US troops die in Iraq (click on)
BAGHDAD: Three more US soldiers have died in Iraq, two of them in action and one in a separate incident, a military statement said. One soldier was killed by a roadside bomb attack while fighting in support of an air assault on insurgent targets southwest of Baghdad, and another “died as a result of injuries sustained from an explosion” in northern Iraq, Sunday’s statement said.
In the third incident, a soldier from Task Force Lightning, based in the northern city of Tikrit died “in a non-combated related incident, which is currently under investigation”. The deaths brought to 3,195 the US military’s losses in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, according to an AFP count based on Pentagon figures.
Meanwhile, a roadside bomb struck a car carrying government bodyguards on Monday, killing at least two and injuring three, police said. The bomb, planted along a busy highway in southeastern Baghdad, apparently targeted the car carrying the guards as they headed to work at the Ministry of Agriculture. The minister was not in the car, police said. agencies
Iraq fallback strategy
WASHINGTON: US military planners have begun work on a fallback strategy in case the US troop buildup in Iraq fails, including a gradual pullout of US forces and more emphasis on training and advising Iraqi forces, the Los Angeles Times reported in Monday’s editions.
The strategy, based partly on the US experience in El Salvador in the 1980s, is in the early planning stages, the newspaper said, citing US military officials and Pentagon consultants who spoke on condition of anonymity.
It is a fallback if the Bush administration’s plan to send about 26,000 more US troops fails to stabilise Iraq, or if the Democratic-led Congress limits that move, it said.
The newspaper quoted a Pentagon official as saying “This part of the world has an allergy against foreign presence. You have a window of opportunity that is relatively short. Your ability to influence this with a large US force eventually gets to a point that is self-defeating”.
The United States sent 55 Green Berets to El Salvador to help its military fight rebels from 1981 to 1992, in a drive to make the US military presence less visible, the newspaper said.
It said Pentagon officials said the Iraq plan would have to entail many more advisors, but that the El Salvador model had influenced planning.
There are currently about 140,000 US troops in Iraq.
Shifting from a troop increase to more reliance on an advisory role would bring the administration more in line with the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan panel that recommended a gradual reduction in US combat forces in Iraq. reuters
Iraq - Suicide Bombing Leaves 10 Dead (click on)
Yet another suicide bomb attack has struck Iraq today this time in the town of Tuz Khormato 130km north of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, leaving at least 10 dead and 25 wounded.
The recent lull in violence in Baghdad has been put down to Shiite parties ordering their militias to avoid confrontations with American troops however violence has risen elsewhere in the country.
The U.S. military has increased its presence in the Iraqi capital in what many observers see as a last ditch attempt to quell the violence in the city.
The President's Council (click on)
In his preface, Minutaglio refers to a source who told him that “Gonzales was like a man who always seemed to be holding something inside, like someone whose skin practically bulged with all the confidences he had accumulated.” That person added that each time he envisioned Gonzales, he drew a mental picture of him leaning over and whispering to someone. That person suggested that if Gonzales ever sat for a portrait, it should be rendered in the manner of Rembrandt’s “’The Evangelist Matthew’”—with Gonzales as the mostly hidden, gauzy figure hovering behind the more clearly depicted and important-looking man in the foreground... And resting a few fingertips on the important man’s back... and leaning in to murmur in that man’s ear.”
The Treasonist Supreme Court Nominee and Presidential Council
ABOVE: Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers (left) and her religious leader, Ron Key (right). (click on)
White House sought to fire 93 attorneys Iclick on)
By Dan Eggen and John Solomon
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON — The White House suggested to the Justice Department two years ago that all 93 U.S. attorneys be fired, according to e-mails and internal documents that the administration will provide to Congress today.
Eventually, eight U.S. attorneys were dismissed by last December.
The firings took place after President Bush told Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that he had received complaints that some prosecutors had not energetically pursued voter-fraud investigations, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. One of the U.S. attorneys dismissed was John McKay of Seattle.
Documents and interviews indicate that Harriet Miers, who was then the White House counsel, suggested in February 2005 that all the prosecutors be dismissed and replaced with new Republican appointees for Bush's second term.
That proposal was rejected by Gonzales as impractical and disruptive, Justice officials said.
Gonzales did approve the idea of firing the smaller group of U.S. attorneys, but he left it to an aide, Kyle Sampson, to carry out most of the details, according to interviews and documents reviewed Monday by The Washington Post.
The documents include numerous e-mails between Sampson and Miers and others in the White House counsel's office.
Sampson resigned Monday, officials said, after acknowledging that he did not tell other Justice Department officials who testified to Congress about the extent of his communications with the White House about the U.S. attorneys, leading them to provide incomplete information in their testimony to lawmakers.
Congress has requested the documents as part of an investigation by the House and Senate Judiciary committees into whether the firings were politically motivated. While it is unclear whether the documents answer that question, they show that the White House and other administration officials were more deeply involved in the dismissals, and at an earlier date, than they have acknowledged.
Seven U.S. attorneys, including McKay, were fired Dec. 7, and another was fired months earlier, with little explanation from the Justice Department. Several of the former prosecutors have since alleged intimidation, including improper telephone calls from GOP lawmakers or their aides, and have alleged threats of retaliation by a Justice Department official.
Administration officials have repeatedly portrayed the firings as a routine personnel matter.
But interviews and documents indicate that over the course of two years, Bush, his top political adviser Karl Rove and other White House officials passed on to the Justice Department complaints they had received that some U.S. attorneys were not doing enough to prosecute certain crimes, such as voter fraud.
Bush personally mentioned such complaints to Gonzales in a conversation in October 2006, Perino said. "He believes informally he may have mentioned it to the AG during the meeting discussing other matters," Perino said. "White House officials, including the president, did not direct DOJ to take any specific action with regards to any specific U.S. attorney."
Perino said that "it doesn't appear the president was told about a list nor shown a list" of U.S. attorneys at any point in the discussions. She said Rove had an early conversation with Miers about the idea of firing all chief prosecutors and did not think it was wise.
Administration officials say they are braced for a new round of criticism today from lawmakers who may feel they were misled by testimony in recent weeks from Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and William Moschella, principal associate deputy attorney general. Several Democrats, including Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, in recent days have asked for Gonzales' resignation.
Although Gonzales rejected Miers' suggestion to fire all 93 prosecutors, her proposal led his aide Sampson to send an e-mail to Miers in March 2005 ranking all 93 U.S. attorneys.
Strong performers "exhibited loyalty" to the administration; low performers were "weak U.S. attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc."; a third group merited no opinion.
Only three of those eventually fired were given low rankings: Margaret Chiara in Grand Rapids, Mich.; Bud Cummins in Little Rock, Ark.; and Carol Lam in San Diego. Two were given strong evaluations: David Iglesias in Albuquerque, N.M., who has alleged political interference from GOP lawmakers, and Kevin Ryan in San Francisco, whose firing has generated few complaints because of widespread management and morale problems in his office.
Ten months later, in January 2006, Sampson sent to the White House the first list of seven potential candidates for dismissal, including four who ultimately were dismissed at year's end: Chiara, Cummins, Lam and Ryan.
In September, Sampson produced another list of potential candidates for dismissal, telling the White House that Cummins was "in the process of being pushed out" and providing the names of eight others who "we should consider pushing out." Five of the candidates on that list were fired in December; three others were spared.
Iglesias, the New Mexico prosecutor, was not on the list in September. Justice officials said Sampson added Iglesias in October, based in part on complaints from Sen. Pete Domenici and other New Mexico Republicans that he was not prosecuting enough voter-fraud cases.
Sampson also strongly urged bypassing Congress in naming replacements, using a little-known power slipped into the renewal of the USA Patriot Act in March 2006 that allows the attorney general to name interim replacements without Senate confirmation.
One e-mail from Miers' deputy, William Kelley, on the day of the Dec. 7 firings said Domenici's chief of staff "is happy as a clam" about Iglesias.
Sampson wrote in an e-mail a week later: "Domenici is going to send over names [of possible replacements] tomorrow (not even waiting for Iglesias's body to cool)."
Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.
President George W. Bush meets with former justices of the Texas Supreme Court Monday, Oct. 17, 2005, in the Oval Office of the White House. From left are: Former Associate Justice Eugene Cook; former Associate Justice Raul Gonzalez; Texas Attorney General and former Associate Justice Greg Abbott, seated; former Texas Chief Justice John Hill; former Associate Justice James Baker; the President, and former Associate Justice Craig Enoch. White House photo by Eric Draper
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
The Loyalty of The New York Times cannot be understated
The New York Times has been with this country nearly as long as the US Constitution. If they could trace their roots back that far I won't be surprised.
The degree of loyalty The New York Times has to the US Constitution is incredibly important to this democracy. Vital. Absolutely and this is proof positive. They have my loyalty as well. This country, based in the truth, is important to me. Without the committment of institutions of 'the truth' we are all lost.
The Libby Verdict is a reminder to that fact. It is grossly inadequate in it's punishment for such a High Crime and Misdemeanor. The impeachment of the Vice President should begin as soon as possible. You know the politics has to be set aside to realize there is a higher value to be satisfied. That value was set down a long time ago. I think it is important for the majority Democratic Senate and House to realize where they are in the history of this nation. The Executive Branch is not a popularity contest as The Republicans would like to believe it is. A popularity contest whereby when won gives the occupant the right to wheeled power over this nation and the world that leads to illegal wars based in lies.
Mr. Cheney's office sanctioned lies to the press to cover up the fact there was no justification for the invasion into Iraq. That has to be punished.
The CIA did it's job. It did it's job under George Tenent. In my opinion, it hasn't performed to that standard since and along with impeachment of the Vice President needs to be assessed the effectiveness of the agencies under this Executive Branch that protects this country.
There is something that happened when Ambassador Wilson wrote the Op-Ed. A reaction happened. That reaction came directly from Vice President Cheney whom kept a copy of the Op-Ed under the glass top on his desk. The reaction from Mr. Cheney was not to correct the course of the falsehoods put forward in the State of the Union Address as pointed to by Ambassador Wilson in his Op-Ed. Mr. Cheney sought to punish agents of the CIA by outing one of the most valuable of it's undercover members, Ms. Valeri .
Intimidation.
Intimidation would be the response by Mr. Cheney. The people surrounding him then carried out the plot against our Constitution, hence the security of our nation. As a result, the war we needed to fight in Afghanistan was abandoned for a billionairs dream come true. We are not more secure today as a nation, if anything we are compromised at the highest levels our government.
The lies by the Bush Administration regarding the yellowcake in Niger cannot be allowed to be overlooked. Evidently, lying is an acceptable and rewarded methodology with this Executive Branch. The lies of the Bush White House never ended. This is only one time when this Executive Branch deceived the American people. The sequelae of the methodology of the Bush White House has lead to incredibly detrimental results for the USA.
Mr. Libby will cry for awhile that he was unjustifiably convicted. He will cry all the more when his very short sentence needs to be remedied in prision. But, the fact of the matter is Mr. Libby should no longer live in denial of the truth surrounding his circumstances. He was not loyal to the US Constitution, he was loyal to a liar and a treasonist in his capacity as Assistant to the Vice President.
Mr. Libby needs to reflect on the fact he compromised the very security of the nation he claims allegience. Mr. Libby and people like him are very dangerous. They seek to place their own ideas before the laws of the US Constitution as if they are provided the opportunity to do exactly that by simply the power of the office they hold. It is Mr. Libby and his false idea of citizenship and patriotism that is more dangerous to the USA than any terrorist.
Without loyalty to the Constitution this government is lost.
Mr. Libby stepped outside that loyalty. He and people like him, such as Mr. Cheney, are very dangerous as they misused the powers of this government to protect it's citizens in a path that today provides little reassurance the acts of September 11, 2001 by the terrorist Osama bin Laden will never be repeated. Mr. Cheney's personal aspirations took the nation's assets on a treasure hunt.
Today, the production of yellowcake by Niger has not changed. It is the same as it always has been. It is controlled and well monitored by the Niger government. The conviction of Lewis Libby has to be a form of apology to the Niger government as well. Never will the Niger government hear an apology for the false allogations by Vice President Cheney.
The issue of journalism comes to the forefront of this occurrence in American history. Journalism is the fourth branch of government guaranteed to the people of this nation by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. We have to look to the profession for it's preception of the power of government in balancing the freedoms of this nation. There is no doubt the testimony of journalists convicted Mr. Libby. To that end, it was justified by Mr. Fitzgerald to insult the autonomy of the profession. The country is better today for it. At the same time, there is a huge insult to the profession. To that end we need to examine the brevity of the committment of this profession to the people of this country to find a way to allow vital testimony while instilling guarantees to it's demands in protecting sources.
If this is any consolation to the profession of journalism, it would seem to me the profession has been used and abused by the Bush Administration at all levels. It is minimally a crime of credibility which is also important to the press. But, this Executive Branch is criminal. It just is. What this episode of Freedom of the Press has proven is that crimes occur to the very profession we have entrusted dearly in this democracy.
There is a Shield Law the profession of journalism believes will protect it and it's dependancy on confidentiality of sources. The Shield Law has been adopted by some states. I would advocate the passage of same by all states and when a more benevolent and truthful Executive Branch is elected into office it should be federalized.
I accept the Shield Law in it's entity as a means of protecting a vitally important freedom of this democracy. The only thing I ask, as an American, is for the profession to consider it's importance in testifying when the integrity of the US Constitution will be laid waste by powerful people adverse to the well being of the people of this nation. To trust a completely free and autonomous press requires the profession to impose high ethical standards. The ethics have to include the demands of transparency when required to protect the Constitution that guarantees it's freedoms as well. It should be a very nice feedback loop whereby the US Constitution protects the press while the press protects the US Constitution in it's entirety and the nation of people dependant on it.
The most aggrieved of all this outside an entire nation of people, is Judith Miller and The New York Times. To that end, with careers and reputation on the line I would encourage both to file suit against minimally Mr. Libby. It is grossly unfortunate the relationship existing between Ms. Miller and the New York Times fell into failure, but, in the same instance the Iraq War is a portion of USA power that never should have occurred.
We are great nation. The conviction of Lewis Libby is proof and I thank Mr. Fitzgerald in upholding the dearest of values important to the document handed down to us well over two hundred years ago. I can't believe, still today, the will of revolutionaries from so long ago, is still being dealt by men of integrity such as Mr. Fitzgerald. A job well done, admired and envied.
The conclusion of this conviction is obvious. The Executive Branch lied to the country, affronted the integrity of the US Constitution while undermining the security of this nation. This issue is not closed !
The degree of loyalty The New York Times has to the US Constitution is incredibly important to this democracy. Vital. Absolutely and this is proof positive. They have my loyalty as well. This country, based in the truth, is important to me. Without the committment of institutions of 'the truth' we are all lost.
The Libby Verdict is a reminder to that fact. It is grossly inadequate in it's punishment for such a High Crime and Misdemeanor. The impeachment of the Vice President should begin as soon as possible. You know the politics has to be set aside to realize there is a higher value to be satisfied. That value was set down a long time ago. I think it is important for the majority Democratic Senate and House to realize where they are in the history of this nation. The Executive Branch is not a popularity contest as The Republicans would like to believe it is. A popularity contest whereby when won gives the occupant the right to wheeled power over this nation and the world that leads to illegal wars based in lies.
Mr. Cheney's office sanctioned lies to the press to cover up the fact there was no justification for the invasion into Iraq. That has to be punished.
The CIA did it's job. It did it's job under George Tenent. In my opinion, it hasn't performed to that standard since and along with impeachment of the Vice President needs to be assessed the effectiveness of the agencies under this Executive Branch that protects this country.
There is something that happened when Ambassador Wilson wrote the Op-Ed. A reaction happened. That reaction came directly from Vice President Cheney whom kept a copy of the Op-Ed under the glass top on his desk. The reaction from Mr. Cheney was not to correct the course of the falsehoods put forward in the State of the Union Address as pointed to by Ambassador Wilson in his Op-Ed. Mr. Cheney sought to punish agents of the CIA by outing one of the most valuable of it's undercover members, Ms. Valeri .
Intimidation.
Intimidation would be the response by Mr. Cheney. The people surrounding him then carried out the plot against our Constitution, hence the security of our nation. As a result, the war we needed to fight in Afghanistan was abandoned for a billionairs dream come true. We are not more secure today as a nation, if anything we are compromised at the highest levels our government.
The lies by the Bush Administration regarding the yellowcake in Niger cannot be allowed to be overlooked. Evidently, lying is an acceptable and rewarded methodology with this Executive Branch. The lies of the Bush White House never ended. This is only one time when this Executive Branch deceived the American people. The sequelae of the methodology of the Bush White House has lead to incredibly detrimental results for the USA.
Mr. Libby will cry for awhile that he was unjustifiably convicted. He will cry all the more when his very short sentence needs to be remedied in prision. But, the fact of the matter is Mr. Libby should no longer live in denial of the truth surrounding his circumstances. He was not loyal to the US Constitution, he was loyal to a liar and a treasonist in his capacity as Assistant to the Vice President.
Mr. Libby needs to reflect on the fact he compromised the very security of the nation he claims allegience. Mr. Libby and people like him are very dangerous. They seek to place their own ideas before the laws of the US Constitution as if they are provided the opportunity to do exactly that by simply the power of the office they hold. It is Mr. Libby and his false idea of citizenship and patriotism that is more dangerous to the USA than any terrorist.
Without loyalty to the Constitution this government is lost.
Mr. Libby stepped outside that loyalty. He and people like him, such as Mr. Cheney, are very dangerous as they misused the powers of this government to protect it's citizens in a path that today provides little reassurance the acts of September 11, 2001 by the terrorist Osama bin Laden will never be repeated. Mr. Cheney's personal aspirations took the nation's assets on a treasure hunt.
Today, the production of yellowcake by Niger has not changed. It is the same as it always has been. It is controlled and well monitored by the Niger government. The conviction of Lewis Libby has to be a form of apology to the Niger government as well. Never will the Niger government hear an apology for the false allogations by Vice President Cheney.
The issue of journalism comes to the forefront of this occurrence in American history. Journalism is the fourth branch of government guaranteed to the people of this nation by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. We have to look to the profession for it's preception of the power of government in balancing the freedoms of this nation. There is no doubt the testimony of journalists convicted Mr. Libby. To that end, it was justified by Mr. Fitzgerald to insult the autonomy of the profession. The country is better today for it. At the same time, there is a huge insult to the profession. To that end we need to examine the brevity of the committment of this profession to the people of this country to find a way to allow vital testimony while instilling guarantees to it's demands in protecting sources.
If this is any consolation to the profession of journalism, it would seem to me the profession has been used and abused by the Bush Administration at all levels. It is minimally a crime of credibility which is also important to the press. But, this Executive Branch is criminal. It just is. What this episode of Freedom of the Press has proven is that crimes occur to the very profession we have entrusted dearly in this democracy.
There is a Shield Law the profession of journalism believes will protect it and it's dependancy on confidentiality of sources. The Shield Law has been adopted by some states. I would advocate the passage of same by all states and when a more benevolent and truthful Executive Branch is elected into office it should be federalized.
I accept the Shield Law in it's entity as a means of protecting a vitally important freedom of this democracy. The only thing I ask, as an American, is for the profession to consider it's importance in testifying when the integrity of the US Constitution will be laid waste by powerful people adverse to the well being of the people of this nation. To trust a completely free and autonomous press requires the profession to impose high ethical standards. The ethics have to include the demands of transparency when required to protect the Constitution that guarantees it's freedoms as well. It should be a very nice feedback loop whereby the US Constitution protects the press while the press protects the US Constitution in it's entirety and the nation of people dependant on it.
The most aggrieved of all this outside an entire nation of people, is Judith Miller and The New York Times. To that end, with careers and reputation on the line I would encourage both to file suit against minimally Mr. Libby. It is grossly unfortunate the relationship existing between Ms. Miller and the New York Times fell into failure, but, in the same instance the Iraq War is a portion of USA power that never should have occurred.
We are great nation. The conviction of Lewis Libby is proof and I thank Mr. Fitzgerald in upholding the dearest of values important to the document handed down to us well over two hundred years ago. I can't believe, still today, the will of revolutionaries from so long ago, is still being dealt by men of integrity such as Mr. Fitzgerald. A job well done, admired and envied.
The conclusion of this conviction is obvious. The Executive Branch lied to the country, affronted the integrity of the US Constitution while undermining the security of this nation. This issue is not closed !
The Loyalists
The Libby Verdict (click on)
There will be a great deal written and said in coming days about the frustrations of the Scooter Libby verdict — that it did not tell us whether someone deliberately blew Valerie Plame Wilson’s cover or erase serious concerns about the prosecutor’s abuse of the First Amendment. Let’s focus first on what the verdict does say.
One of the most senior officials in the White House, Lewis Libby, the chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, was caught lying to the F.B.I. He appears to have been trying to cover up a smear campaign that was orchestrated by his boss against the first person to unmask one of the many untruths that President Bush used to justify invading Iraq. He was charged with those crimes, defended by the best lawyers he could get, tried in an open courtroom and convicted of serious felonies. Mr. Libby walked freely out of the court, had his say in public and will be allowed to appeal.
It was another reminder of how precious the American judicial system is, at a time when it is under serious attack from the same administration Mr. Libby served. That administration is systematically denying the right of counsel, the right to evidence and even the right to be tried to scores of prisoners who may have committed no crimes at all.
And although we still do not know the answer to the original mystery, the case provided a look at the methodical way that Mr. Cheney, Mr. Libby, Karl Rove and others in the Bush inner circle set out to discredit Ms. Wilson’s husband, Joseph Wilson IV. Mr. Wilson, a career diplomat, was sent by the State Department in 2002 to check out a British intelligence report that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the government of Niger for a secret nuclear weapons program. In his 2003 State of the Union address, Mr. Bush said: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
In July 2003, Mr. Wilson wrote in an Op-Ed article in The Times that what he had found did not support that claim. The specter of a nuclear-armed Iraq was central to Mr. Bush’s case for rushing to war. So, the trial testimony showed, Mr. Cheney orchestrated an assault on Mr. Wilson’s credibility with the help of Mr. Libby and others. They whispered to journalists that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the C.I.A. and that nepotism was the reason he had been chosen for the trip.
That is what we know from the Libby trial, and it is some of the clearest evidence yet that this administration did not get duped by faulty intelligence; at the very least, it cherry-picked and hyped intelligence to justify the war. What Mr. Wilson found, and subsequent investigations confirmed, was that there was one trip in 1999 — not “recently,” but four years before Mr. Bush’s statement — by an Iraqi official to Niger and that during that trip, uranium was never discussed.
What we still do not know is whether a government official used Ms. Wilson’s name despite knowing that she worked undercover. That is a serious offense, which could have put her and all those who had worked with her in danger. We also do not understand why the federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, chose to wage war with the news media in assembling his case, going so far as to jail a Times reporter, Judith Miller, for refusing to reveal the name of a confidential source.
The potential damage from that decision remains of real concern. But it was still a breath of fresh air to see someone in this administration, which specializes in secrecy, prevarication and evading blame, finally called to account.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Click on link below to White House page on this meeting.
August 8, 2003.
From left to right. Richard Armitage, George Walker Bush and Colin Powell.
Link to White House e-page - click here Kindly note view webcast.
The editorial by Joe Wilson in the New York Times regarding Niger was written on July 6, 2003. It clearly stated there was no link between Saddam Hussein and yellowcake shipments to Iraq. Bush clearly lied regarding Africa's contribution to WMD in Iraq in a State of the Union Address. Clearly lied within sixteen words noted on this blog. Clearly lied. Clearly lied.
The outing of Valerie Plame occurred July 14, 2006 (Click here for a reference to it in Slate Magazine) with an article by Robert Novak. Richard Armitage was the primary source of the leak but what followed was a cascade of lies by the White House including Karl Rove whom testified before the special prosecutor five times and I. Lewis Libby who simply lied to the Special Prosecutor without seeking to pursue the same path as Rove.
This picture above is reflective of the possibility of high level loyality and leaks that surrounds this president. At the time this occurred both Armitage and Powell were noncommital to their place in a second Bush administration giving rise to all types of possibilities of underhanded politics, in retrospect realizing neither of these men stayed in the second administration.
The point is there was a high level leak and to what extent it involves a president and vice president is highly suspicious regardless the primary source. The Republicans would like to boil this down to one unfortunate person, Armitage and as if the rest of the Executive Branch would be victims to it.
If Richard Armitage outed a CIA agent in retaliation of an editiorial by Joe Wilson, then it was to help Bush in a very questionable re-election. There was no other reason. There could be no other reason. The question by Novak of Armitage was 'Well who chose Wilson to go to Niger?' as if there was something wrong in that choice. The reply by Armitage was in anger and definately was intended to hurt Wilson by scandalizing the fact 'his CIA wife' suggested it. In fact, the conservative journalists tried to exploit that fact and blame narcissism within the CIA for sending Joe Wilson with intention of undermining Bush rather than seeking to support his claim.
Joe Wilson was involved with the administration of George H. W. Bush and why would an Ambassador with sincere interests in protecting this country including his wife and young children ever lie to any administration regarding an issue of national security. The conservative journalist's arguments don't hold water, but, under this administration any 'reworking' of the truth to favor the president is considered an act of heroics.
Recently, in the BBC, the Wilsons (click here) were asked if there would continue to be a law suit against people responsible for this act of treason that caused them so much hardship in their personal lives. The answer, of course, is yes and it should be. Regardless the primary source there was a great deal of maneuvering behind the scenes by the White House to contain the extent Joe Wilson's editorial would impact upcoming elections and any possiblity of impeachment. The Wilsons became pawns in a game of 'whom controls the Executive Branch' post 2004 elections, while, the question still remains unanswered originally asked by Novak, 'Who indeed sent Joe Wilson and why?' Could it possibly be his experience, expertise and previous work for a Bush administration? I think so.
The Fitzpatrick investigations need to 'conclude' and the trials to go forward including that of the civil suit by Mr. and Mrs. Wilson. The people of this country deserve answers considering Ms. Plame was involved in apprehending people engaging in WMD against the USA, the very reason Bush used to invade a disarmed country, namely Iraq. The people of this nation do not know the value of Ms. Plames work and whether indeed she was the single most important person in stopping any additional attacks on the USA.
In lying to and manipulating the public prior to the elections of 2004 seeking the upper hand politically for re-election, has the administration of George Walker Bush destroyed the very vehicle of intelligence used by Ms. Plame in her covert status. Certainly those she was dealing with now know her 'modus operandi' and have exploited that knowledge through the community of international terrorist networks.
The White House in this case is guilty for not conducting themselves appropriately from the start when any one of them could have stopped the leaks and demanded an internal investigation. Also noteworthy of this administration is it's reward for appearing incompetent, ie: the continued longevity of Michael Brown after Katrina, Bush's backing of him when the tragedy of incompetency was realized including that of Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff and the fact Mr. Brown now prospers as an independant businessman with his own security firm after allowing the deaths as well as those still missing along the Gulf Coast. It is this 'phenomina' that surrounds this president and there remains no punishment for abusing power at any level. That is accompanied by a majority Senate and House that seeks no retribution against an Executive Branch clearly lying and out of control while stoking the crony network that feeds an artifical economy through chronic debt ceiling increases.
There is much here that is completely wrong and contrary to the well being of the American people. Armitage is only the tip of the iceberg.
Further evidence to Bush's lies. Today in the New York Times. There was absolutely no evidence to link Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. In creating fear among the electorate, Bush was able to abandon the hunt for bin Laden, which was half hearted to begin with, to pursue a more valuable target and one sought after by this administration before the elections of 2000, :
C.I.A. Said to Find No Hussein Link to Terror Chief (click on)
By MARK MAZZETTI
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 — The Central Intelligence Agency last fall repudiated the claim that there were prewar ties between Saddam Hussein’s government and an operative of Al Qaeda, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, according to a report issued Friday by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
The disclosure undercuts continuing assertions by the Bush administration that such ties existed, and that they provided evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Republican-controlled committee, in a second report, also sharply criticized the administration for its reliance on the Iraqi National Congress during the prelude to the war in Iraq.
The findings are part of a continuing inquiry by the committee into prewar intelligence about Iraq. The conclusions went beyond its earlier findings, issued in the summer of 2004, by including criticism not just of American intelligence agencies but also of the administration.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
What I Didn't Find in Africa
By JOSEPH C. WILSON 4th
WASHINGTON -- Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?
Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and PrÃncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.
It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.
In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.
The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.
I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.
Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.
(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)
Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.
Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.
I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.
Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.
The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.Those are the facts surrounding my efforts.
The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.
The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.
I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program — all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.
But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.
Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant.
WASHINGTON -- Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?
Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and PrÃncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.
It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.
In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.
The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.
I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.
Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.
(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)
Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.
Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.
I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.
Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.
The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.Those are the facts surrounding my efforts.
The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.
The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.
I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program — all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.
But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.
Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant.
The Voices from the Past. The Security of Our Nation
Men of Integrity. Caption: Former CIA analysts, Larry Johnson, center, with former analyst and case worker, Col. W. Patrick Lang (ret.), left, and Jim Marcinkowski, right, testifies on Capitol Hill before a joint Senate and House committee, Friday, July 22, 2005, in Washington. The Democrats of the Senate Policy Committee and House Government Reform Committee held a hearing on the CIA leak and the national security implications of disclosing the identity of a covert intelligence officer.
From the Washington Post
Ex-CIA Officer Rips Bush Over Plame Leak
By DONNA DE LA CRUZ
The Associated PressSunday, July 24, 2005; 9:24 AM
WASHINGTON -- President Bush is jeopardizing national security by not disciplining Karl Rove for his role in leaking the name of a CIA officer, and has hampered efforts to recruit informants in the war on terror, former U.S. intelligence officers say.
Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson used the Democratic Party's weekly radio address Saturday to reiterate comments he made Friday to a panel of House and Senate Democrats.
At that event, Johnson and others expressed great frustration that CIA operative Valerie Plame's name was made public. Plame is married to former ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of Bush's Iraq policy.
"Instead of a president concerned first and foremost with protecting this country and the intelligence officers who serve it, we are confronted with a president who is willing to sit by while political operatives savage the reputations of good Americans like Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson," Johnson said in the radio address.
Johnson, who said he was a registered Republican, said Bush has gone back on his promise to fire anyone at the White House implicated in a leak.
Federal law forbids government officials from revealing the identity of an undercover intelligence officer.
Rove, Bush's deputy chief of staff, told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in a 2003 phone call that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction issues, according to an account by Cooper in the magazine.
Rove has not disputed that he told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the agency, but has said through his lawyer that he did not mention her by name.
In July 2003, Robert Novak, citing unnamed administration officials, identified Plame by name in his syndicated column and wrote that she worked for the CIA. The column has led to a federal criminal investigation into who leaked Plame's undercover identity. New York Times reporter Judith Miller _ who never wrote a story about Plame _ has been jailed for refusing to testify.
Bush said last week, "I think it's best that people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. And I will do so, as well."
Dana Perino, a White House spokesman, said Friday that the administration would have no comment on the investigation while it was continuing.
Johnson said he wished a Republican lawmaker would have the courage to stand up and "call the ugly dog the ugly dog."
"Where are these men and women with any integrity to speak out against this?" he asked. "I expect better behavior out of Republicans."
By DONNA DE LA CRUZ
The Associated PressSunday, July 24, 2005; 9:24 AM
WASHINGTON -- President Bush is jeopardizing national security by not disciplining Karl Rove for his role in leaking the name of a CIA officer, and has hampered efforts to recruit informants in the war on terror, former U.S. intelligence officers say.
Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson used the Democratic Party's weekly radio address Saturday to reiterate comments he made Friday to a panel of House and Senate Democrats.
At that event, Johnson and others expressed great frustration that CIA operative Valerie Plame's name was made public. Plame is married to former ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of Bush's Iraq policy.
"Instead of a president concerned first and foremost with protecting this country and the intelligence officers who serve it, we are confronted with a president who is willing to sit by while political operatives savage the reputations of good Americans like Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson," Johnson said in the radio address.
Johnson, who said he was a registered Republican, said Bush has gone back on his promise to fire anyone at the White House implicated in a leak.
Federal law forbids government officials from revealing the identity of an undercover intelligence officer.
Rove, Bush's deputy chief of staff, told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in a 2003 phone call that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction issues, according to an account by Cooper in the magazine.
Rove has not disputed that he told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the agency, but has said through his lawyer that he did not mention her by name.
In July 2003, Robert Novak, citing unnamed administration officials, identified Plame by name in his syndicated column and wrote that she worked for the CIA. The column has led to a federal criminal investigation into who leaked Plame's undercover identity. New York Times reporter Judith Miller _ who never wrote a story about Plame _ has been jailed for refusing to testify.
Bush said last week, "I think it's best that people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. And I will do so, as well."
Dana Perino, a White House spokesman, said Friday that the administration would have no comment on the investigation while it was continuing.
Johnson said he wished a Republican lawmaker would have the courage to stand up and "call the ugly dog the ugly dog."
"Where are these men and women with any integrity to speak out against this?" he asked. "I expect better behavior out of Republicans."
From "Thought Crimes." Rick Santorum and Randall Terry meeting regarding Terri Schiavo.. Influence Peddling. Is that what government is for? I didn't think so. I thought it was to govern in a way that benefits the public and not victimize it.
THESE Men Deny a Lot
(Click on Above Link)
WASHINGTON Mar 20, 2005 — Congressional Republicans denied on Sunday that political motivations were behind legislative efforts to reconnect Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.
"I hope we're not … making this human tragedy a political issue," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. "We've got plenty of other issues that are political in nature for us to fight about."
Leaders of both parties agreed Saturday on legislation that they said would allow Schiavo's feeding tube, which was disconnected Friday afternoon, to be reinserted while federal courts review her case.
The Republican Character is not Condusive to Democracy and it shows up in the extremes vividly.
A Nation cannot have a democracy with racism and bigotry. It's impossible.
An interview with, Rick Santorum, the third ranking Repuglican in the Right Wing. A Vile Extremist.
BROWN: Sam Rayburn, the legendary speaker of the house of representatives was legendary for many things, but is remembered for saying this if you want to get along, go along. Safe to say our guest tonight rarely gets called the get along/go along type. Rick Santorum, the junior senator from Pennsylvania is fiercely partisan, openly devout, frequently outspoken. He's also the third ranking Republican in the United States Senate, and now the author of "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good." We're pleased to see him always, and pleased that he's with us in New York tonight. Nice to see you.
… BROWN: You can't know. I'll talk a little about the book, a little about other things. I saw a poll the other day that said 60 percent of the country wanted to know how Judge Roberts felt about Roe v Wade. It's a settled case. Do you think the country's entitled to know whether he believes that that case was decided correctly?
SANTORUM: You know my feeling is, you have to look at the standard of what's been applied in the past. And what judges in the past have been forced to answer is, you know, how they felt about, you know, sort of the black letter law, if you will. Not really looking at, how would you rule in cases.
BROWN: I'm not asking how you'd rule. This is a settled case. Roe v Wade is a settled case, it is settled. Is this a fair question, do you agree that that case was settled correctly? Is that a fair question to ask him?
SANTORUM: Well, let me put it this way. That question was asked of Judge Ginsberg, it was asked of Judge Breyer and neither of them answered the question.
BROWN: So the answer is no you don't think the country is entitled…
SANTORUM: Well I think, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I mean, it's remarkable that we have an ACLU lawyer, not just someone who -- I mean, an ACLU lawyer who gets a pass on their ideology for the United States Senate and we have a lawyer who is really a lawyer's lawyer, he's been all over the place, is clearly not someone with an agenda and all of a sudden they have to answer litmus test kinds of questions. Is that fair? I would say it's not fair.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HIS RANTINGS ARE ABOUT. There is an ACLU lawyer in the Senate. I would like to know who that is. I don't mind. I find it highly objectionable to think John What's his name, Oh, yeah, Roberts. John Robert's is a LAWYER'S LAWYER. I guess that is like being a MAN'S MAN, huh? So a Lawyer's Lawyer is someone who is all over the place in deciding cases. Is that right? Well, I guess you might want to say that to a-kin him to Sandra Day O'Connor, but, there are some of us who weren't born yesterday Ricky.
BROWN: All I want to know is if -- it's really a simple question.
SANTORUM: I'm giving you the answer. The answer is no. If it wasn't answered in the past, it shouldn't be answered in the future.
BROWN: OK. So we're not entitled to know whether he thinks that was settled correctly, no. Why? Isn't that a good thing to know? Because people vote for and against that.
SANTORUM: I think you should know about how a judge makes a decision and what he takes into consideration in making that decision. But as far as applying it to a specific case...
BROWN: Even if that case has been decided?
SANTORUM: Right, you know, I think even if that case has been decided, yeah. I think you want -- you want to look at -- this is not a test of how judges feel about certain issues. You get to elect members of the Congress. We have to answer those questions.
BROWN: Do you think there's a right to privacy in the Constitution?
SANTORUM: No -- well, not the right to privacy as created under Roe v. Wade and all...
BROWN: Do you think there's a right to privacy in the Constitution?
SANTORUM: I think there's a right to unreasonable -- to unreasonable search and seizure...
THIS IS WHERE people like Santorum lose their arguments as they want to see the USA Constitution as a RULE BOOK. It's not. It has guidelines to apply to the life we live but it isn't a dictatorial tool.
The Fourth Amendment if you will:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/
There is nothing complicated here and where the Religious Right Republican Party wants to 'getcha' is on the definition of 'Probable Cause.' That is why Texas had a sodomy law. As long as it was illegal for men to make love together by the act in which they chose to express it, they could prove Probable Cause, make homosexuality illegal and jail people. Other than that being a human rights violation raises the issue what happens to repeat offenders.
The Religious Right is trying to 'capture' old 'colonial themes' and apply it to the USA Constitution as if this was a precept to understand the intentions of the Founding Fathers. They do that chronically. It's hideous and poor Justice Souter even felt he needed to defend against it in his argument regarding separating 'church and state.'
The past is not the direction the present takes. It is all too easy to find religious references. PRIMARILY Christian references in Colonial America.
The Jews didn't arrive until the beginning of the 1900s with the immigration movement and the domination of the Nazis in Europe. One of the largest and earliest Jewish congregations to come to this country was Rabbi Max Heller's congregation in New Orleans. Until that point Jews lived among Christians and were primarily poor and rejected by society but as with anything else there was safety and prosperity in numbers.
As an asset to the culture and determined need to survive the earliest forms of medicine, law and media (newsprint) was mastered by the Jews. Those three professions were least advantageous in an agrarian society that met at Church once a week for the news. Colonial America doctored with common sense and horse liniment.
All those professions were on the margins and the reason newsprint was important is because it grew out of a community need to share letters from distant relatives. Rabbi Heller developed a huge community that lived very near their synagogue. The professions flourished with shared concerns and ideas. It was out of the Jewish communities these 'wonders' of medicine and communication grew.
And law.
Colonial America didn't concentrate on law the way society does today. The towns were small, the population less, they were gunslingers who ''smoked people out" into the open and then hung them after ganging up on them in a court of law. To practice law opposing judges was a social sin.
Jews represented criminals because it was a living no one else wanted to perform. After the Jews arrived in American, the landscape changed dramatically.
No one ever says thank you.
I am not sure when the Muslim faith or Hindu or Buddist showed up in this country but they also lived in sequestered areas where they could worship as they wanted without causing too much oddity as Christians would see them.
So, to even TRY to apply Old Colonial Realities to modern day is an outrageous and bigoted thought. The men who wrote the US Consitution were all Caucasian property owners and there were absolutely no women in the process. So, to see the US Constitution as a 'Rule Book' is to be bigoted and why this Evangelical Right Wing Movement does exactly that.
BROWN: For example, if you'd been a Supreme Court judge in Griswold versus Connecticut, the famous birth control case came up, which centered around whether there was a right to privacy. Do you believe that was correctly decided?
Griswold v. Connecticut
381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Docket Number: 496
Abstract
Argued:
March 29, 1965
Decided:
June 7, 1965
Subjects:
Judicial Power: Standing to Sue, Personal Injury
Facts of the Case
Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.
Question Presented
Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?
Conclusion
Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void.
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/149/
THERE IS NOTHING COMPLICATED HERE EITHER. Unless. You oppose birth control and family planning. Then there is a lot wrong here but that is individual choice and PRIVACY. Get over it.
SANTORUM: No, I don't. I write about it in the book. I don't.
BROWN: The state of Connecticut had the right to ban birth control for a married couple.
SANTORUM: I think they were wrong. It was a bad law.
BROWN: But they had the right.
SANTORUM: They had the right. They had the right…
BROWN: Why would a conservative argue that government should interfere with that most personal decision?
SANTORUM: I didn't. I said it was a bad law. And...
So, much self righteousness.
THIS IS NOT BAD LAW. However, he is right in stating there are stupid legislators. He provides a magnificent example of one.
BROWN: I'm going to do something I almost never do. The control room just -- we're going to go -- we're going to run long here. This is fun and interesting.
SANTORUM: OK.
BROWN: I want to talk about the thing you said about Boston for a second.
SANTORUM: OK.
You know it sort of reminds me of the way Rick Santorum runs his career as a legislator and the way Repuglicans run their agendas. "It doesn't matter how you get there so long as you do."
BROWN: Do you really think that left and right have a dramatically different view of how a good child is formed?
A GOOD CHILD.
A GOOD CHILD.
Well, where there is a good child I suppose there is a bad child as well.
SANTORUM: I would say yes. The highest virtue of the left in the world today is tolerance, and that is -- that's acceptance of anything, and anything for any reason. Well, I don't believe on the right -- or I don't think most Americans, not just on the right -- I don't think most Americans see it that way.
Well, I don't believe on the right -- or I don't think most Americans, not just on the right -- I don't think most Americans see it that way.
Well, I don't believe on the right -- or I don't think most Americans, not just on the right -- I don't think most Americans see it that way.
WE WENT FROM 'RIGHT' to Most Americans. Well, if it's most Americans the only ones left need to change including 'the left' especially considering we all have to have THE SAME VIEW of a Good Child. They are self righteous at the cost of others freedoms. There way is the only way to them. I've heard it all before.
I think most Americans want people to have certain virtues, honesty, integrity and all those other things. There may be agreement, and certainly obviously the left wants honesty and integrity, but there is a lot of things they don't accept.
Just ahead ,,,, other things to take care of. This is NEWSNIGHT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Control room's recovering from its heart attack.
An interview with, Rick Santorum, the third ranking Repuglican in the Right Wing. A Vile Extremist.
BROWN: Sam Rayburn, the legendary speaker of the house of representatives was legendary for many things, but is remembered for saying this if you want to get along, go along. Safe to say our guest tonight rarely gets called the get along/go along type. Rick Santorum, the junior senator from Pennsylvania is fiercely partisan, openly devout, frequently outspoken. He's also the third ranking Republican in the United States Senate, and now the author of "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good." We're pleased to see him always, and pleased that he's with us in New York tonight. Nice to see you.
… BROWN: You can't know. I'll talk a little about the book, a little about other things. I saw a poll the other day that said 60 percent of the country wanted to know how Judge Roberts felt about Roe v Wade. It's a settled case. Do you think the country's entitled to know whether he believes that that case was decided correctly?
SANTORUM: You know my feeling is, you have to look at the standard of what's been applied in the past. And what judges in the past have been forced to answer is, you know, how they felt about, you know, sort of the black letter law, if you will. Not really looking at, how would you rule in cases.
BROWN: I'm not asking how you'd rule. This is a settled case. Roe v Wade is a settled case, it is settled. Is this a fair question, do you agree that that case was settled correctly? Is that a fair question to ask him?
SANTORUM: Well, let me put it this way. That question was asked of Judge Ginsberg, it was asked of Judge Breyer and neither of them answered the question.
BROWN: So the answer is no you don't think the country is entitled…
SANTORUM: Well I think, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I mean, it's remarkable that we have an ACLU lawyer, not just someone who -- I mean, an ACLU lawyer who gets a pass on their ideology for the United States Senate and we have a lawyer who is really a lawyer's lawyer, he's been all over the place, is clearly not someone with an agenda and all of a sudden they have to answer litmus test kinds of questions. Is that fair? I would say it's not fair.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HIS RANTINGS ARE ABOUT. There is an ACLU lawyer in the Senate. I would like to know who that is. I don't mind. I find it highly objectionable to think John What's his name, Oh, yeah, Roberts. John Robert's is a LAWYER'S LAWYER. I guess that is like being a MAN'S MAN, huh? So a Lawyer's Lawyer is someone who is all over the place in deciding cases. Is that right? Well, I guess you might want to say that to a-kin him to Sandra Day O'Connor, but, there are some of us who weren't born yesterday Ricky.
BROWN: All I want to know is if -- it's really a simple question.
SANTORUM: I'm giving you the answer. The answer is no. If it wasn't answered in the past, it shouldn't be answered in the future.
BROWN: OK. So we're not entitled to know whether he thinks that was settled correctly, no. Why? Isn't that a good thing to know? Because people vote for and against that.
SANTORUM: I think you should know about how a judge makes a decision and what he takes into consideration in making that decision. But as far as applying it to a specific case...
BROWN: Even if that case has been decided?
SANTORUM: Right, you know, I think even if that case has been decided, yeah. I think you want -- you want to look at -- this is not a test of how judges feel about certain issues. You get to elect members of the Congress. We have to answer those questions.
BROWN: Do you think there's a right to privacy in the Constitution?
SANTORUM: No -- well, not the right to privacy as created under Roe v. Wade and all...
BROWN: Do you think there's a right to privacy in the Constitution?
SANTORUM: I think there's a right to unreasonable -- to unreasonable search and seizure...
THIS IS WHERE people like Santorum lose their arguments as they want to see the USA Constitution as a RULE BOOK. It's not. It has guidelines to apply to the life we live but it isn't a dictatorial tool.
The Fourth Amendment if you will:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/
There is nothing complicated here and where the Religious Right Republican Party wants to 'getcha' is on the definition of 'Probable Cause.' That is why Texas had a sodomy law. As long as it was illegal for men to make love together by the act in which they chose to express it, they could prove Probable Cause, make homosexuality illegal and jail people. Other than that being a human rights violation raises the issue what happens to repeat offenders.
The Religious Right is trying to 'capture' old 'colonial themes' and apply it to the USA Constitution as if this was a precept to understand the intentions of the Founding Fathers. They do that chronically. It's hideous and poor Justice Souter even felt he needed to defend against it in his argument regarding separating 'church and state.'
The past is not the direction the present takes. It is all too easy to find religious references. PRIMARILY Christian references in Colonial America.
The Jews didn't arrive until the beginning of the 1900s with the immigration movement and the domination of the Nazis in Europe. One of the largest and earliest Jewish congregations to come to this country was Rabbi Max Heller's congregation in New Orleans. Until that point Jews lived among Christians and were primarily poor and rejected by society but as with anything else there was safety and prosperity in numbers.
As an asset to the culture and determined need to survive the earliest forms of medicine, law and media (newsprint) was mastered by the Jews. Those three professions were least advantageous in an agrarian society that met at Church once a week for the news. Colonial America doctored with common sense and horse liniment.
All those professions were on the margins and the reason newsprint was important is because it grew out of a community need to share letters from distant relatives. Rabbi Heller developed a huge community that lived very near their synagogue. The professions flourished with shared concerns and ideas. It was out of the Jewish communities these 'wonders' of medicine and communication grew.
And law.
Colonial America didn't concentrate on law the way society does today. The towns were small, the population less, they were gunslingers who ''smoked people out" into the open and then hung them after ganging up on them in a court of law. To practice law opposing judges was a social sin.
Jews represented criminals because it was a living no one else wanted to perform. After the Jews arrived in American, the landscape changed dramatically.
No one ever says thank you.
I am not sure when the Muslim faith or Hindu or Buddist showed up in this country but they also lived in sequestered areas where they could worship as they wanted without causing too much oddity as Christians would see them.
So, to even TRY to apply Old Colonial Realities to modern day is an outrageous and bigoted thought. The men who wrote the US Consitution were all Caucasian property owners and there were absolutely no women in the process. So, to see the US Constitution as a 'Rule Book' is to be bigoted and why this Evangelical Right Wing Movement does exactly that.
BROWN: For example, if you'd been a Supreme Court judge in Griswold versus Connecticut, the famous birth control case came up, which centered around whether there was a right to privacy. Do you believe that was correctly decided?
Griswold v. Connecticut
381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Docket Number: 496
Abstract
Argued:
March 29, 1965
Decided:
June 7, 1965
Subjects:
Judicial Power: Standing to Sue, Personal Injury
Facts of the Case
Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.
Question Presented
Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?
Conclusion
Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void.
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/149/
THERE IS NOTHING COMPLICATED HERE EITHER. Unless. You oppose birth control and family planning. Then there is a lot wrong here but that is individual choice and PRIVACY. Get over it.
SANTORUM: No, I don't. I write about it in the book. I don't.
BROWN: The state of Connecticut had the right to ban birth control for a married couple.
SANTORUM: I think they were wrong. It was a bad law.
BROWN: But they had the right.
SANTORUM: They had the right. They had the right…
BROWN: Why would a conservative argue that government should interfere with that most personal decision?
SANTORUM: I didn't. I said it was a bad law. And...
IT IS BAD LAW because it doesn't match Rich Santorum's belief system. His ego is so huge here that it fills up every available breathing space in the room. Mr. and Mrs. Santorum doesn't have to do anything they don't want to and they have no right to impose their beliefs on others. Like I said, ' ... the Republican character is not condusive to democracy.' Bush/Cheney talk about spreading democracy but the way they practice it never brings with it peace.
BROWN: But they had the right to make.
SANTORUM: They had the right to make it. Look, legislatures have the right to make mistakes and do really stupid things...
BROWN: OK.
SANTORUM: ... but we don't have to create constitutional rights because we have a stupid legislature. And that's the problem here, is the court feels like they have a responsibility to right every wrong. When they do that, unlike a Congress, that if we make a really stupid mistake and we do something wrong, we go back next year or next month and change it, and we've done that. Courts don't do that. They only get cases that come before them and they have to make broad, sweeping decisions that have huge impact down the road.
So, much self righteousness.
These people don't have modesty.
THAT LAST PARAGRAPH HE SPOKE IS 'JUSTIFICATION' TO REPEATEDLY PRESENT CASE AFTER CASE to the Supreme Court 'thinking' the entire time all the court needs is more exposure to change these decisions. That is how these morons continue to solicit their constituencies by PROMSING this is just the way of reversing 'bad law' and every time we approach the court it changes incrementally better.
"W"rong.
It is high time these legislators set their constituencies straight and tell them the law is set and it's time we live with everyone else and not just our standards.
That's what happened in Griswold. It was a bad law. The court felt, we can't let this bad law stand in place. It's wrong. It was. But they made a -- they created out of whole cloth a right that now has gone far, far from Griswold versus Connecticut.
THIS IS NOT BAD LAW. However, he is right in stating there are stupid legislators. He provides a magnificent example of one.
BROWN: I'm going to do something I almost never do. The control room just -- we're going to go -- we're going to run long here. This is fun and interesting.
SANTORUM: OK.
BROWN: I want to talk about the thing you said about Boston for a second.
SANTORUM: OK.
BROWN: OK. I don't know if we have this. We can put it on the screen, but you said "when the culture is sick, every element becomes infected. While it is no excuse, the scandal" -- referring to the priest abuse scandal -- "it is no secret that Boston, the seat of academic, political, cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."
First of all, wasn't that a little over the top?
SANTORUM: Well, what's over the top is taking a three-year-old article...
BROWN: What's the context?
SANTORUM: And the context was, I was writing about the priest scandal and condemning the priest scandal, condemning the church...
BROWN: Well, of course you were condemning it. No one supports it.
SANTORUM: ... and talking about concrete things we need to do to fix it. I was out there. No other United States senator...
BROWN: Why so -- why Boston?
SANTORUM: Because, again, context. What was going on in 2002 -- not 2005, but in 2002 -- that's where the scandal was. It wasn't anywhere else. We weren't talking about it. In 2002, it was the epicenter. We didn't have the report by the bishops conference. We didn't have…
BROWN: So now you wouldn't say that?
SANTORUM: I wouldn't -- well, no, there's a lot of other cities that were involved. But the point is that cultural liberalism and what I talked about is a contributing factor to how people view sexual activity. And I am not the one that says that. Robert Bennett, in the report that he issued on behalf of the bishops conference, called the Bennett report, said exactly my words, except the word Boston wasn't in it.
BROWN: OK. But you wouldn't say that about Boston now. Is that right? Based on what we know about the scandal.
SANTORUM: I said it then, it was the...
BROWN: Not then, now?
SANTORUM: ... yeah, it was the epicenter, and there are many other cities that that would apply.
… and there are many other cities that that would apply.
… and there are many other cities that that would apply.
… and there are many other cities that that would apply.
THE Rebuglican Right Wing wants to make example of "Blue State Stronholds" like New York City. Like Boston. Like San Francisco. Like Los Angeles. Like Chicago as 'epicenters' of SIN. "Sin City" if you will. Bruce Willis made a movie not long ago entitled exactly that. Odd how this party thinks if they introduce a movie to the public it will all be over. The 'idea' behind defaming large cities as areas of sinfulness is to COST them their 'tourist' trade by a large aspect of the population, SUPPOSEDLY, who will boycott these cities until the morality changes. I find it very odd this is a topic of conversation beyond the allotted time considering there was an entire segment on "Paula Zahn NOW" regarding escorts in New York City and one in particular that was featured in "The New Yorker" that billed out at $2000 per hour.
Very odd indeed. THE bad boys of Aaron and Rick decided on break they could 'get away' with clout enough to stretch the interview.
BROWN: What we were talking about in the break was that -- my belief that actually in many respects, the left and the right talk (INAUDIBLE), but they agree on a lot of things. It takes a child -- it takes a family and it takes a village, in fact, are both true. And I think you'd agree with that.
SANTORUM: And I say that, yeah.
BROWN: Right. And that the left doesn't believe it only takes a village any more than the right believes it only takes a family.
SANTORUM: It's where you start from. I think the left -- the left starts from the top down. Believes in the experts, believes in...
BROWN: What is the basis of that? Why do you believe that?
SANTORUM: Well, I mean, look at institutions dominated by the left. I mean, education.
IF THAT isn't the truth. The Red States have the highest literacy rates, the highest divorce rates and the highest teen pregnancy rates. I mean no wonder these people are so religious. Nothing else is working for them.
I talk about this very much in the book. I mean, it was created very much as a way of having, you know, social control from the top, and modernizing it to -- into our culture, progressive children, and having state control of education. It's been a battle ever since for local control of schools, versus the experts on top trying to decide for us how to handle...
BROWN: Republican administration -- this -- your administration has exerted more federal control over schools than any in history.
SANTORUM: Yeah. I have serious -- serious problems and have had serious problems with federal legislation. And had very serious concerns about No Child Left Behind…
BROWN: Did you vote for it?
SANTORUM: I voted for it, because what it basically required was accountability. It didn't dictate how we get there. It dictated that you had the measure how you get there. And to me, that is basically holding folks accountable for what they do, as opposed to dictating what they do.
ACCOUNTABILITY. Not important how you get there, just that you get there, including 'Teaching to the Test,' depriving schools ranked as unattainable from funding and causing greater hardship of those children while the Religious Right takes to the 'Charter School' system and 'Voucher Programs.' Men like Rick Santorum don't care about other children so much as his own and what he has to keep them free of secularism.
You know it sort of reminds me of the way Rick Santorum runs his career as a legislator and the way Repuglicans run their agendas. "It doesn't matter how you get there so long as you do."
BROWN: Do you really think that left and right have a dramatically different view of how a good child is formed?
A GOOD CHILD.
A GOOD CHILD.
Well, where there is a good child I suppose there is a bad child as well.
SANTORUM: I would say yes. The highest virtue of the left in the world today is tolerance, and that is -- that's acceptance of anything, and anything for any reason. Well, I don't believe on the right -- or I don't think most Americans, not just on the right -- I don't think most Americans see it that way.
Well, I don't believe on the right -- or I don't think most Americans, not just on the right -- I don't think most Americans see it that way.
Well, I don't believe on the right -- or I don't think most Americans, not just on the right -- I don't think most Americans see it that way.
WE WENT FROM 'RIGHT' to Most Americans. Well, if it's most Americans the only ones left need to change including 'the left' especially considering we all have to have THE SAME VIEW of a Good Child. They are self righteous at the cost of others freedoms. There way is the only way to them. I've heard it all before.
I think most Americans want people to have certain virtues, honesty, integrity and all those other things. There may be agreement, and certainly obviously the left wants honesty and integrity, but there is a lot of things they don't accept.
Just ahead ,,,, other things to take care of. This is NEWSNIGHT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Control room's recovering from its heart attack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)